"We must dismantle our culture of dependency"


So you and the homeless lady would like the law changed so as to provide security of tenure? The details as to what that involves to be discussed, but the principle is there. You, like the homeless lady, want security of tenure.
Again, the context of the quote "a house for life" from the article was not determined. If it was a demand, then I would agree with you. But if it was an expression of a commonly held aspiration, then I see nothing wrong with it.
 
So what are you proposing?

You repeatedly assert that employers are under paying their employees and the state is subsidising that under payment. Can you explain what you mean?

That's two questions. Please answer both of them.

Do you subscribe to "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"? If so them that's communism. If not then your point above is nonsense.
Can you answer this as well please?
 
Excellent, we agree on something; people do not have the right to housing.
 

Yes I would subscribe to that, but it is not communism. Not from what I understand communism to be anyway.
 
Yes I would subscribe to that, but it is not communism. Not from what I understand communism to be anyway.
Well it is according to Communists.
See here.
Or maybe you are just a Marxist?
Socialism is, according to Marx, a lower stage of communism so maybe it's just that socialist stage of communism.
From my limited understanding of these things it was meant to be applied after the workers utopia had been achieved and people didn't need to work but rather chose to do so as it had become a pleasurable activity.
 

Well, you can call me a marxist or communist all you want, I dont get the point?
That is a slogan adopted by communists to which I would agree with, wouldnt you?
Tiocfaidh ár lá is an Irish republican slogan, but if the Wicklow hurling team adopt it in relation to their pursuit of an all-ireland, does it make them supporters of the IRA?
Anyway, you asked me about that first slogan, I answered.
So in good turn, do you subscribe to that slogan? And if not why not?
 

I don't need to go anywhere, because this topic is entitled "We must dismantle our culture of dependency" and you should thank the contributors in the other thread, for going into the very details that they did - but it doesn't change this topic.

Perhaps I did take some time to mention the rate of home care help, but I was busy before that trying to detach any notion of increasing car premiums to welfare dependency.

Yes, you took a lot of time - maybe if you just concentrated on the topic, instead of continually dragging it off, then you might have spent your time and energy on productive discussion.

I have read that article again about the homeless campaigner and this is what is says
"She said she wanted the next property she and daughter lived in 'to be for life'"

Which is exactly what I said, I never mentioned "security of tenure" because that is a different issue.

If that is a demand then that is a sense of entitlement.

Yes it is a demand, because she has turned down two housing opportunities, because they do not fit what she wants. She wants a particular property, in particular area and she wants it for life - that isn't the problem though, the problem is that she wants the state to provide it.



She is demanding from the State, what most people are working hard to provide for themselves, by themselves. They share that view, but they don't demand that the state provide it - indeed, were it only the case that we could all go to the state with a wish list.

You are defending a culture of entitlement and a welfare dependency culture, like the populist parties who use these people as fodder to progress their own careers.
 

A "house for life" is not the same as "security of tenure" - the lady you are discussing is not "homeless", she has no home, but she isn't on the street, she is in a hotel.

She was offered two options of properties, she turned them down, rather her and her daughter stay in completely unsuitable accommodation, then take somewhere, to ease the pressure - because there are people in all likelihood, whose living conditions are a lot worse then this lady's and a hotel room would be a step up - but sure let's not look at the bigger picture eh?

She wants a home for the rest of her life, after she receives whatever degree from TCD, and maybe after securing good employment and earning 50k or more, while in her home for life, therefore depriving someone else of being given a hand up.

Honest to god............
 
Well, you can call me a marxist or communist all you want, I dont get the point?

That is a slogan adopted by communists to which I would agree with, wouldnt you?
No, I wouldn’t. It’s socially unjust and undesirable. It damages society and inflicts poverty and suffering on people. For proof just look at every communist country ever. Look at Communist countries because the phrase is inherently communist.


Why do you keep deflecting like this? “Our day will come” can mean anything depending on the context. It is completely different to a slogan which encapsulates a ideological dogma.
 
You repeatedly assert that employers are under paying their employees and the state is subsidising that under payment. Can you explain what you mean?

That's two questions. Please answer both of them.

Can you answer my other questions please?

Can you answer these question please?
You are dodging the hard questions which ask you to clarify your position and deflecting by asking spurious questions of other posters.
 

She turned down two properties because they were being provided through the HAP system, which in turn, left her vunerable to being evicted after 12 months at the whim of the landlord. This does not provide for a stable environment, especially where children are concerned. And as a campaigner, highlighting the plight of homeless people, it would be folly to accept accommodation under such conditions while simultaneously campaigning against a system that facilitates evictions after only 12 months at the whim of the landlord.

Read the article again, she makes no such demand. She is quoted as saying "to be for life", nothing else. It is the reporter that claims she was talking about her next home. She could have been talking about Graham Dwyers prison sentence for all we know. We dont know, because the reporter didnt print the full quote. Given the overall tone of the article, I wonder why?

I appreciate you dont want to face up to the fact that the OP has dismissed the initial detail of the NESC report, but at least he has admitted to being wrong and is even considering a request from another poster to contact the Indo.
 
 
She turned down two properties because they were being provided through the HAP system, which in turn, left her vunerable to being evicted after 12 months at the whim of the landlord.

She turned down two properties. Full.stop.

She was left no more vulnerable to eviction then any other private sector worker out there.

This does not provide for a stable environment, especially where children are concerned.

So the 100's of 1000's of children whose parent's rent privately are not in a stable environment? Really?


Lol, anti homeless campaigner offered solution but won't accept "solution" lest she be brought down to the level of private renters - is that it?



Ah I see.

I appreciate you dont want to face up to the fact that the OP has dismissed the initial detail of the NESC report, but at least he has admitted to being wrong and is even considering a request from another poster to contact the Indo.

Did he change the title of this thread or did he change the question that he posed?
 
Its just a slogan, and has a lot of merit to it. Communist countries would have collapsed with or without the slogan.
Communist countries would not have been communist without it. It encapsulates what is means to be communist. If you think it has a lot of merit then you think that communism has a lot of merit. You are perfectly entitled to believe that of course; it's a free country and will remain so unless communists take power.

Now, will you answer my other questions?
 

1. What am I proposing? With regard to what exactly?

2. A worker with a family may qualify for Family Income Supplement if the income for the whole family falls below a certain threshold, roughly €12 per hour. The state will top up the difference (up to 60%) in the wage and the designated threshold. So for a family with one child the threshold is €512. The employer pays €450, knowing that the employee can claim benefit of 60% of the difference between the wage and threshold, a further €36 in this instance. A saving of €36 in wages for the employer at the expense of the taxpayer.

Now, I ve answered your questions (whether you agree or not is mute) you answer mine.
Is it reasonable to expect an unemployed civil engineer to take up a job in a coffee shop if it becomes available? Is it reasonable to expect a coffee shop employer to hire an over qualified unsuitable professional?
If the answer is 'unreasonable', is the engineer part of the culture of welfare dependency?
 
Socialism, Communism , Capitalism = Humbug !

1. Socialism , nice handy way of
a. Overthrowing autocratic regimes
b. funny how its the socialists , who raise ticket touting by elites ? underpaid deckhands on boats ? and other inequities ?
B1. funny how its socialists who foul up countries ? eg Venezuala.

2. Communism , a nice handy way of
a. saying I am right and if you disagree , off with your head , or was that La Republique?
A1.Funny how communist Cuba , starved of (capitalistic) funds have a good health care.

3. Capitalism , nice handy way of
a. funny how they pretend its a free market, then slapping mortgage,bond debt etc onto Mr Citizen.
b. funny how capitalism seems to have lifted a lot of boats?

In short isms ain,t helpful.
 
Still all are ism,s , its how we use our biases to interpret them.
It seems a little communism, a little socialism, a little capitalism and your corporatism mixed properly would give us utopianism !